| Message ID | 20210812010939.1644-1-longpeng2@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | vsock/virtio: avoid potential deadlock when vsock device remove | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 7 of 7 maintainers |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 16 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c index e0c2c99..4f7c99d 100644 --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c @@ -357,11 +357,14 @@ static void virtio_vsock_event_fill(struct virtio_vsock *vsock) static void virtio_vsock_reset_sock(struct sock *sk) { - lock_sock(sk); + /* vmci_transport.c doesn't take sk_lock here either. At least we're + * under vsock_table_lock so the sock cannot disappear while we're + * executing. + */ + sk->sk_state = TCP_CLOSE; sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET; sk_error_report(sk); - release_sock(sk); } static void virtio_vsock_update_guest_cid(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
There's a potential deadlock case when remove the vsock device or process the RESET event: vsock_for_each_connected_socket: spin_lock_bh(&vsock_table_lock) ----------- (1) ... virtio_vsock_reset_sock: lock_sock(sk) --------------------- (2) ... spin_unlock_bh(&vsock_table_lock) lock_sock() may do initiative schedule when the 'sk' is owned by other thread at the same time, we would receivce a warning message that "scheduling while atomic". Even worse, if the next task (selected by the scheduler) try to release a 'sk', it need to request vsock_table_lock and the deadlock occur, cause the system into softlockup state. Call trace: queued_spin_lock_slowpath vsock_remove_bound vsock_remove_sock virtio_transport_release __vsock_release vsock_release __sock_release sock_close __fput ____fput So we should not require sk_lock in this case, just like the behavior in vhost_vsock or vmci. Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) <longpeng2@huawei.com> --- net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)